支架式教学法在英语议论文教学中的应用
|
摘要
随着英语作为国际语言的普及,其作为沟通交流工具的作用也越大越大,英语教学在我国也得到了前所未有的高度重视。然而,尽管学校、教师及学生都付出了大量的努力,英语教学的效果并不理想,学生的书面语言表达能力还不尽人意。特别是针对大学生最常遇到的议论文,如何运用英语有效地表达自己的思想成为了困扰英语学习者的一大难题。在此,笔者尝试着将支架式教学法运用到英语议论文教学中,目的在于寻求一种更为有效的议论文写作教学方法。研究的结果可以帮助大学英语教师对支架式教学法在英语议论文写作教学中的应用获得更深入的了解。
在文献综述部分,笔者对有关支架式教学的研究与应用进行了回顾,介绍了英语议论文教学在中国大学中的现有情况,指出了将支架式教学法运用于课堂的可行性。
本实验由两个部分组成。第一个部分是一个为期三个月的课堂实验,实验对象是两个由写作水平相当的非英语专业大一学生组成的平行班级,一组被看作实验组,另一组被看作对照组。这两组均由笔者进行课堂教学。在实验组中,通过分组学习、课堂互动以及老师的指导来实现支架的搭建。而在对照组,在同样的教学时间中,仍然采用传统的写作教学方法,即以练促写的方法。三个月后,两个班级会同时进行一次写作测评,对学生的文章从主旨、一致性、过渡、主题句以及地道性这五个方面进行分析,看支架式教学法在这些方面是否有效。第二部分是在实验组中进行的问卷调查,以了解学生对支架式教学法的效果与方法有怎样的看法。
研究结果表明,在三个月的实验过程中,支架式教学方法在除了一致性这个方面的效果不理想外,在其他四个方面都获得了明显的收效。大多数实验组的同学也都认为这种方法比传统的写作教学法都有效,并且愿意在今后的教学中继续采用这种方法。
The thesis intends to find a more effective and efficient way for the instruction of argumentative writing in Chinese universities. The result of the research can help college English teachers gain insights into the theory of scaffolding instruction and its application to writing classes.
The thesis reviews the development of scaffolding approach, which derives from Vygotsky's theory of Zone of Proximal Development. The current situation of English argumentative writing in Chinese universities has also been introduced. Since scaffolding approach is feasible in the argumentative writing class, a research was conducted to find out its effectiveness.
The research consists of two phases. The first phase was a three-month experiment. Two classes of freshmen were selected, one class as experimental class and the other as control class. In the experimental class, "scaffolding" was built for the subjects to facilitate their writing process, while the control class still used the traditional method. After three months' instruction, a final test was given for both classes for the purpose of comparing the testing results in terms of theme, unity, transition, topic sentences and idiomatic writing. The second phase was a survey with questionnaires conducted in the experimental class to find the subjects' feelings about the new approach and the steps taken during the instruction.
According to data analysis, the scaffolding approach was proved to be effective in all the aspects except the area of unity. The majority of the students in the experimental class was satisfied with this new approach and preferred it to continue.
在文献综述部分,笔者对有关支架式教学的研究与应用进行了回顾,介绍了英语议论文教学在中国大学中的现有情况,指出了将支架式教学法运用于课堂的可行性。
本实验由两个部分组成。第一个部分是一个为期三个月的课堂实验,实验对象是两个由写作水平相当的非英语专业大一学生组成的平行班级,一组被看作实验组,另一组被看作对照组。这两组均由笔者进行课堂教学。在实验组中,通过分组学习、课堂互动以及老师的指导来实现支架的搭建。而在对照组,在同样的教学时间中,仍然采用传统的写作教学方法,即以练促写的方法。三个月后,两个班级会同时进行一次写作测评,对学生的文章从主旨、一致性、过渡、主题句以及地道性这五个方面进行分析,看支架式教学法在这些方面是否有效。第二部分是在实验组中进行的问卷调查,以了解学生对支架式教学法的效果与方法有怎样的看法。
研究结果表明,在三个月的实验过程中,支架式教学方法在除了一致性这个方面的效果不理想外,在其他四个方面都获得了明显的收效。大多数实验组的同学也都认为这种方法比传统的写作教学法都有效,并且愿意在今后的教学中继续采用这种方法。
The thesis intends to find a more effective and efficient way for the instruction of argumentative writing in Chinese universities. The result of the research can help college English teachers gain insights into the theory of scaffolding instruction and its application to writing classes.
The thesis reviews the development of scaffolding approach, which derives from Vygotsky's theory of Zone of Proximal Development. The current situation of English argumentative writing in Chinese universities has also been introduced. Since scaffolding approach is feasible in the argumentative writing class, a research was conducted to find out its effectiveness.
The research consists of two phases. The first phase was a three-month experiment. Two classes of freshmen were selected, one class as experimental class and the other as control class. In the experimental class, "scaffolding" was built for the subjects to facilitate their writing process, while the control class still used the traditional method. After three months' instruction, a final test was given for both classes for the purpose of comparing the testing results in terms of theme, unity, transition, topic sentences and idiomatic writing. The second phase was a survey with questionnaires conducted in the experimental class to find the subjects' feelings about the new approach and the steps taken during the instruction.
According to data analysis, the scaffolding approach was proved to be effective in all the aspects except the area of unity. The majority of the students in the experimental class was satisfied with this new approach and preferred it to continue.
引文
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. E (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone ofproximal development. The Modern Language Journal, 78: 465-483.
Arbitman-Smith, R., Haywood, H. C. and Bransford, J. D. (1984), Assessing cognitive change, in P. Brooks, R. Sperber and C. McCauley (Ed.) Learning and Cognition in the Mentally Rerarded. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Ashman, A. F. & Conway, Robert N. F. (2002). An introduction to cognitive education: theory and applications. London: New York Routledge.
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. NAEYC Research and Practice Series, 7. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Burkhalter, N. (1995). A Vygotsky-based curriculum for teaching persuasive writing in the elementary grades. Language Arts, 73:192-199.
Cazden, C. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3(1): 5-8.
Deborah J. Leong, & Elena Bodrova, McREL (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(2): 1-18
Ding, Wang Dao. Et al. (1994). A College Handbook of Composition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Erickson, F, & Schultz, J. (1997). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Ed.), Mind, Culture and Activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galperin, P. Ya. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. In M. Cole & I. Maltzman (Ed.), A handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Hall J. K. & Verplaetse L. S. (2000). Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction (Ed.). Mahwah, New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hamp-Lyons, L. and Kroll, B. (1997). TOEFL 2000 - writing: Composition, community, and assessment. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 5).Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Ahmed, M. K. (1989). Psycholinguistic perspectives on interlanguage variation: A Vygotskyian analysis. In S. Gass et al., Variation in second language acquisition, Psycholinguistic issues 2: 93-108. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G.(1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. Lantolf & G.Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Alex.
McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for Success. [Electronic version] Beyond Technology, Questioning, Research and the Information Literate School Community. From http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html
Meyer, D. K. (1993). Whar is scaffolded instruction? Definitions, distinguishing features, and misnomers. In D. J. Leu & C. K.Kinzer, (Ed.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. Chicago: The National Reading Conference.
Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socihistorical psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working or cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. New York: Routledge.
Rogoff, B. & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development in B. Rogoff and J. Lake (Ed.), Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Rottenberg, A. (1997). Elements of Argument. Boston: Bedford.
Sara C. W. (2001). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research. 66: 53-86.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke & A. Janik (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky. L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky. L.S. (1982). Om barnets psykiske udvikling [On the child's psychic development]. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wertch, J.V., & Hickmann, M. (1987). Problem solving in social interaction: A microgenetic analysis. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought. Orlando: Academic Press
Wood, D., Bruner, J. C., & Ross, G.(1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,17:89-100
Zheng Haicui,(2003).The application of process-oriented writing[J].中国大学英语教学研究,2003(1).
苗娟,(2006),.以读促写、以评促写---一项非英语专业写作教学模式的试验[J].语言学与外语教学,2006(2).
王懿,宣安,陈永捷,(2006).理工科大学英语写作教学现状调查与分析[J].外语界,2006(5).
Arbitman-Smith, R., Haywood, H. C. and Bransford, J. D. (1984), Assessing cognitive change, in P. Brooks, R. Sperber and C. McCauley (Ed.) Learning and Cognition in the Mentally Rerarded. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Ashman, A. F. & Conway, Robert N. F. (2002). An introduction to cognitive education: theory and applications. London: New York Routledge.
Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children's learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. NAEYC Research and Practice Series, 7. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, and Experience & School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Brown, A. L., Ash, D., Rutherford, M., Nakagawa, K., Gordon, A., & Campione, J. C. (1993). Distributed expertise in the classroom. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Burkhalter, N. (1995). A Vygotsky-based curriculum for teaching persuasive writing in the elementary grades. Language Arts, 73:192-199.
Cazden, C. (1981). Performance before competence: Assistance to child discourse in the zone of proximal development. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 3(1): 5-8.
Deborah J. Leong, & Elena Bodrova, McREL (1998). Scaffolding emergent writing in the zone of proximal development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3(2): 1-18
Ding, Wang Dao. Et al. (1994). A College Handbook of Composition. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Erickson, F, & Schultz, J. (1997). When is a context? Some issues and methods in the analysis of social competence. In M. Cole, Y. Engestrom, & O. Vasquez (Ed.), Mind, Culture and Activity: Seminal papers from the laboratory of comparative human cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Galperin, P. Ya. (1969). Stages in the development of mental acts. In M. Cole & I. Maltzman (Ed.), A handbook of contemporary Soviet psychology. New York: Basic Books.
Hall J. K. & Verplaetse L. S. (2000). Second and Foreign Language Learning Through Classroom Interaction (Ed.). Mahwah, New Jersy: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Hamp-Lyons, L. and Kroll, B. (1997). TOEFL 2000 - writing: Composition, community, and assessment. (TOEFL Monograph Series Report No. 5).Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Ahmed, M. K. (1989). Psycholinguistic perspectives on interlanguage variation: A Vygotskyian analysis. In S. Gass et al., Variation in second language acquisition, Psycholinguistic issues 2: 93-108. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Lantolf, J. P., & Appel, G.(1994). Theoretical framework: An introduction to Vygotskian approaches to second language research. In J. Lantolf & G.Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, NJ: Alex.
McKenzie, J. (1999). Scaffolding for Success. [Electronic version] Beyond Technology, Questioning, Research and the Information Literate School Community. From http://fno.org/dec99/scaffold.html
Meyer, D. K. (1993). Whar is scaffolded instruction? Definitions, distinguishing features, and misnomers. In D. J. Leu & C. K.Kinzer, (Ed.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice. Chicago: The National Reading Conference.
Moll, L. C. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socihistorical psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working or cognitive change in school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Newman, F., & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary scientist. New York: Routledge.
Rogoff, B. & Gardner, W. (1984). Adult guidance of cognitive development in B. Rogoff and J. Lake (Ed.), Everyday Cognition: Its Development in Social Contexts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Rottenberg, A. (1997). Elements of Argument. Boston: Bedford.
Sara C. W. (2001). Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Sperling, M. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research. 66: 53-86.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Toulmin, S., R. Rieke & A. Janik (1979). An Introduction to Reasoning. New York: Macmillan
Van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky. L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky. L.S. (1982). Om barnets psykiske udvikling [On the child's psychic development]. Copenhagen: Nyt Nordisk.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Wertch, J.V., & Hickmann, M. (1987). Problem solving in social interaction: A microgenetic analysis. In M. Hickmann (Ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought. Orlando: Academic Press
Wood, D., Bruner, J. C., & Ross, G.(1976) The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,17:89-100
Zheng Haicui,(2003).The application of process-oriented writing[J].中国大学英语教学研究,2003(1).
苗娟,(2006),.以读促写、以评促写---一项非英语专业写作教学模式的试验[J].语言学与外语教学,2006(2).
王懿,宣安,陈永捷,(2006).理工科大学英语写作教学现状调查与分析[J].外语界,2006(5).